Beware Splits in UKIP

by Stephen Crowther

Note: As a matter of policy, the Libertarian Alliance does not endorse or support any political party. However, so far I can tell, every one of our Officers is a UKIP voter or even member. We therefore draw this notice to the attention of our readers. UKIP may not be perfect, but it is our only mainstream political party with any degree of libertarianism in its policies. Nigel Farage is our only mainstream politician who remotely counts as a libertarian. We take a very dim view of efforts to disrupt UKIP. SIG

We Demand A Referendum

Many loyal and dedicated UKIP members have signed the petitions set up by Nikki Sinclaire and colleagues, and distributed their materials under the slogan ‘We Demand a Referendum’. They have done this in good faith.

Now, however, Ms Sinclaire and her colleagues have made clear that We Demand A Referendum is to be regarded as a new political party, registered with the Electoral Commission, which aims to stand against UKIP in the 2014 European Elections.

Under the UKIP Constitution, anyone joining or remaining in membership of the new party will be unable to retain their UKIP membership. The new party is actively canvassing for new members among those who have signified their support for the campaign in the past.

This new party makes clear that it intends to reduce UKIP’s vote in the future. Though it cannot hope to achieve the level of support that UKIP has built over 20 years – we are now acknowledged even by Nick Clegg to be above the Liberal Democrats in public support – it might, if it survives, pose a threat to our goal of coming first in the 2014 European Elections, and causing an earthquake in British politics. As we have seen with the English Democrats, UK First etc in the past, a small party taking a small number of UKIP votes can hand additional seats to the Conservatives.

We therefore urge all UKIP members and others who have supported We Demand A Referendum in the past to sever their links with it, and put all their efforts behind achieving a UKIP win in 2014.

Stephen Crowther, Chairman, UK Independence Party
Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon EX31 4DG
Phone 01271 813844 Mobile 07775 787579



  • This is just classic – create many competing patriotic parties so that none of them go anywhere.

    I have always believed there is state involvement in some parties in the UK – it is just too easy for a few minders in the state to divide and rule any opposition. UKIP has suffered constant internal rifts, and the Veritas thing a while back has never been properly explained in my view. Veritas successfully divided and thus held back UKIP.

  • I have been a UKIP member since 1994 and have known and greatly admired Nigel for all this time. Curiously, however, I now find myself at odds with the Party’s central policy of holding an ‘in/out’ referendum on our EU membership. I opposed the Referendum Party (and stood against them) in the 1997 election for the same reason; which is that if the vote goes against us that will be the end of the debate. Firstly, it is my firm belief that the political Establishment will stop at nothing – and I do mean nothing – to get the result they want should such a referendum take place. Secondly, there is also the historical fact that in every referendum which has been held in the EU, a ‘Yes’ vote is regarded as final, whereas a ‘No’ vote is only provisional. Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty; Ireland rejected Nice; France and the Netherlands rejected the ‘Constitution for Europe’ a.k.a Lisbon Treaty. Ireland also rejected Lisbon. By law, all of these results killed off the respective treaties stone dead. But did they stay dead? No, the results were reversed by a second referendum or (in the case of the ‘Constitution’) just ignored. A few years ago Sweden voted against adopting the Euro; that result will also eventually be reversed, since Sweden does not have an ‘opt-out’ and is treaty-bound to adopt the Euro. Incidentally, neither do we have such an opt out, since ours was enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, and that no longer exists, having been superseded or at least modified by Lisbon. Thirdly, if we do, by some miracle, vote to secede from the EU, we shall have to decide whether we wish to do so under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty (which provides for a two year moratorium, during which we shall be exlcuded from all talks and meetings), or whether we will just declare U.D.I. as did Ian Smith in Rhodesia. If the former, our European ‘partners’ will be able to bleed this country dry before dumping our corpse overboard; if the latter, they will be justified in sending tanks through the Channel Tunnel. Fourthly, there is much talk of repealing the 1972 European Communities Act and thereby extricating ourselves from the Treaty of Rome (this has always been, and remains, UKIP’s policy) but my view is that since Lisbon, the ECJ will simply tell us we have repudiated a treaty that no longer exists (since it too has been supplanted or at least modified by Lisbon) and the EU will refuse to recognise it. Finally, my starting premise is that the EU cannot survive without the UK as a Member State. They have spent the last half-century patiently ensnaring us in their web, while driving wedges between the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere. They are never in a million years going to relinquish and abandon all of this just because of one silly referendum on our part. Sadly, my view has always been that if we are to extricate ourselves from the clutches of the EU it will be by force of arms or not at all.

  • I tend to agree with Richard North: that Farage is a piss-poor leader/organiser (despite his very good-speaking skills) and he is largely the cause of UKIP going nowhere. I would not rule out security service action to undermine UKIP. I have no doubt we can get out of the EU without a war. A referendum is dangerous however as every lying sack of shit in the world will be rolled out to pressure the none-too-bright British voter.

  • Well-said – even if I don’t agree with you about Nigel Farage!

  • I’m inclined to think the opposite; that UKIP would probably have fizzled away without Farage. We should be amazed that they have got this far; getting a political party to be even significant is an incredible achievement under our political system, which is so hugely biased against “start-ups” (not least because the voting system forces us to vote by party for local representatives, in order to indirectly elect the executive. It’s total bollocks.)

    I am however against a referendum for much the same reasons as expounded by Hugo Miller above; it would almost certainly be lost, and if it were not, it would be put aside.

    I voted UKIP at the last election, but I’m not a member and have little knowledge of their internal workings. I do however remember reading a while ago that Farage et al tried to drop the “UK” from the name, making it the Independence Party, and adopt a more overtly lite-libertarian stance, to clearly broaden it beyond its single issue basis, but that was blocked by the wing of the party who see it as more of a “true conservative party”. I would nonetheless like to see that happen, for obvious reasons, me being a Libetarian and all that.

    I don’t personally believe that the EU could do much to harm us if a UKIP government were elected, and just rang up Brussels and said “we’ve left, cheerio”. It’s the getting to that point that is the problem.

    I can’t see any merit at all in splitting the party like this. Small parties are always vulnerable to such fallings-out. This looks like the classic circular firing squad.

  • Creating a new splinter party in order to challenge UKIP in elections is bizarre. Can you really have the interests of your country at heart? Or are you playing the pettiest of petty politics?
    I suspect that without Nigel Farage the party would never have gone anywhere in the first place, to be where it is today is testament to his leadership.
    (As for the comment on whether we could actually leave the EU even if we vote to – the answer is that Nigel is probably the only person who will make sure NO to the EU means NO)

    • To deal with D J Webb’s point about internal splits, this has been happening since the Party’s inception. It began with the especially vicious regicide of Dr Alan Sked, co-incident with the parachuting in from nowhere of one Michael Holmes with a very large chequebook. When Alan left in disgust he took half our best people with him, and frankly who can blame them? Norman Tebbit stated openly that he believed the Party had been infiltrated by MI5 (or was it MI6?). Many internal splits have been engineered since, each resulting in the departure of many good folk. Nigel, however, just keeps buggering on, as Churchill would have it. He has been doing this for twenty years now in spite of having nothing but sh*t thrown at him from all directions, much of it from his so-called friends and allies. I don’t want to sound too fawning, but having known Nigel for a very long time I never cease to be amazed at his boundless energy; his ability to keep going without ever tiring, to keep smiling through in the face of defeat after defeat, to be immaculately turned out at all times, to eat and drink and enjoy life to the full (although I understand he denies that ‘seven times in one night’ claim by that Latvian barmaid!). In addition, I have always felt it must take considerable physical courage to get up on your hind legs in that Hemicycle in Brussels and launch attack after attack on the entire Politburo surrounding you while you are practically in a minority of one. I feel he will one day come to be regarded as almost Churchillian in stature. Having said all that, to respond to Chris’s point (‘Nigel is the only person who will make sure No to the EU means No’), how will he do that? What will certainly happen, in my view, is that Brussels and the ECJ will refuse to recognise the result of our referendum, and we will refuse to recognise the ECJ. Then what happens? Keep in mind my original premise that the EU cannot survive financially without our contributions and our assets such as fishing grounds which the EU has appropriated. If we do not underwrite their beloved currency it will collapse (yes, I know Mr Cameron hasn’t exactly spelled this out to us yet, but I would not be at all surprised if he turns out to be the man to take us into the Euro). They are not going to just let us walk away, that I can promise you. And that is before you take into account the ideological battle for the soul of this country which has been raging for fifty years and more. Never in a million years are they going to sever our bonds and allow us to return to the warm embrace of the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere, not now, when they are a hair’s breadth from achieving all their goals of a politically unified Europe with Britain as part of it. So it’s back to the ‘tanks through the Channel Tunnel’ scenario I guess. Finally, to respond to Ian B’s comment about the Party name, it was originally ‘UK Independence Party’. Then Michael Holmes came along, and the sole achievement of his leadership was to change the name to ‘United Kingdom Independence Party’. From the outset it has always been known as ‘UKIP’ and Nigel has now made that the official title. UKIP has never, not from day one, been a single issue party. It has ALWAYS had a full manifesto. But the point is that it doesn’t matter a fig what your policies are if all our laws are made in Brussels. This is why, and I am amazed nobody ever comments on this, whenever you listen to Establishment politicians at election time, all they ever talk about is “Schools’n’hospitals” (Labour) or “Health and education” (Tory). They neglect to mention that everything else is determined behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

  • Sean haven’t you had numerous run ins with some of the UKIP people, mainly the paleoconservatives? Also wonder if anyone could tell me whether the paleoconservatives or the more libertarian groups are more dominant within the party?

    • Oh, the argument I had with some UKIP people five years ago is beside the point. Besides, I won it. Within a few months of the pamphlet war, its leadership was back to inviting me to its events. Even otherwise, you don’t bear grudges where this country’s only hope is concerned.

      There is no hope but UKIP, and Nigel Farage is its leader.

  • Alan Sked – if I recall correctly he was more focused on the EU as a single issue, and I think UKIP is doing well to broaden out its appeal into a larger range of conservative and libertarian issues.

    • DJW – Agreed. Getting out of Europe is only a beginning. No point in pulling out, if we are to continue just as we do now.

    • The EU was never a SINGLE issue for UKIP, but it was and remains the over-arching issue because as I said earlier there is no point in having domestic policies on issues that are dictated by Brussels. Even in Alan Sked’s day UKIP had a full manifesto of policies which could be implemented if and only if we withdrew from the EU. It always makes me cross when people continue to refer to UKIP as a ‘single issue party’. It is not and never has been.
      It is true that the Maastricht Treaty was the issue that brought me into politics, with its commitment that we must “irrevocably” surrender various powers to Brussels. I believe I am right in saying that Nigel departed the Conservatives to establish UKIP with Alan Sked at about the same time but I have no idea if that was the deciding factor for him.
      In recent years (during Blair’s reign followed by the Brown terror) I have arrived at the view that the EU has been merely a vehicle for the political aims of these highly unpleasant people. It has enabled them to completely reverse the relationship between citizen and State. In this respect, the EU has served its purpose, and if we quit tomorrow it would make no immediate difference to our lives. Eventually we could unscramble the various Directives (the Regulations would immediately cease to have any force). I once calculated that if we repealed ten of these things a day it would take us forty years to be rid of them.
      Which reminds me of a question I intend to pose to my MP Francis Maude (yes, it was he who signed the Maastricht Treaty, thereby creating both the EU and the Euro); given that it has long been axiomatic of British Jurisprudence that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’, are we all really expected to know the 180,000 – odd pages of EU law? Once again, if we were to learn ten of these wretched things a day it would take us forty years, by which time there would no doubt be another forty years’ worth on the Statute Books. We would all end up like those black hatted Jewish Rabbis who devote their lives to studying the scriptures. We would have no time left for work, recreation or daliiances with Latvian barmaids. If that isn’t dystopia then I don’t know what is.

  • Indeed. Staing inside the EUSSR might make some of the posturings and bullyings of our home-grown pettyGauleiters less injurious, since the power-centralisation will tend to sideline the little local bastards, and tend towards them eventually becoming irrelevant.

    Hopefully the institutional inefficiency of the centre will allow a modicum of private personal freedom, rather like in the USSR. It depends if the centre installs a Stasi: sadly, there will be no shortage of applciants in Britain these days.

  • We can simply burn the lot, erase all the hard disks with relevant material thereon, and say we’ve repealed them. As the little girl from next door over the wall who in 2006 wantyd my wife to give her an ice lolly, because my son had one, said famously…”JUST TELL-ER!!!”

    • I wish! EU Regulations will automatically cease to have any force if we leave the EU. The Mass of EU Directives, on the other hand, have been implemented into UK law by means of Statutory Instruments, and these will remain on our Statute Books until repealed.

  • One final Statutory Instrument that repeals ALL earlier ones and also outlaws SI’s from that time onwards. Also included a clause making any attempt to revive SI’s a capital offence.

  • Hugo, I should have worded that as something like “to change the perception of UKIP as a single issue party”.

    I am inclined to agree with other posters, and have said so here before, that leaving the EU is not an end in itself. If the enemies of the last century were Communism and Fascism, the enemy of this century is- whatever we call it- “Politically Correct Progressivism” or something like that. And that is primarily a creation of the Anglosphere. The tranzi organisations are a means of spreading that philosophy worldwide. Our own local, national elites are entirely in the thrall of this ideology. Thus, a simplistic withdrawal from these institutions would be of little benefit to us- locking us in with our oppressors- but would be of more benefit to foreign nations, in that sense, freeing them from instutitions which impose this ideological hegemony.

    I am inclined to wonder whether it would be possible to “unpick” the changes that have been made to our legislation and constitution. As Hugo ponts out above, it would be a mammoth task. Neither am I convinced that one feasibly could achieve a “conservative” type programme of reverting to “how we were”. Even without the Fabians, Progressives, Marxists, etc, our society would have evolved; societies and their constitutions, whether formal or informal, always do that. I thus tend to think that a more radical, “Year Zero” approach will ultimately be required. Which is an extremely difficult point to reach, let alone doing it successfully. But I am doubtful that a gradualist reversal is feasible at all. Effectively, I’m saying that the law book would have to be thrown in the shredder and a new body of laws, derived from a negative-rights Constitution, created from scratch.

    This is partly I think because unlike many conservatives, I don’t think our muddled “Constitution” was ever much good; it functioned because, for a while at least, the people administering it tried to do so in a fair and decent manner. They always had too much constitutional power, but one can argue that they were aware of that and thus exercised restraint; just as a tyrant prince can be a good prince, if he exercises restraint. All such sense of decency has now been lost by our ruling class and such things do not tend to return.

    So in that sense, I see leaving the EU as simply one part of a package of requirements for getting our liberty back.

    But anyway, again, I think Farage has done a good job. You’ve only got to look the Libertarian Party UK mess to see the fate of most small start-up parties.

  • The weapons to neutralize Ms Sinclaire, whoever she might be, have been created by the very GramscoFabiaNazis for whom she is clearly working.

    In these modern times, anybody who wants to destroy another can merely repeat, anonymously, certain types of accusations to the “Authorities”, which will generally centre on allegations either of a sexual nature relating to children or “homophobia”, or of tax-evasion, or benefit-fraud of some kind. The descent of the said authorities upon the named person is always swift and terrible.

    Someone in UKIP could do that to Ms Sinclaire, anonymously. If she gets off and is left unhindered inside a few weeks or months, then we will know that she is an anti-UKIP state plant granted GramscoFabiaNazi immunity to proceed against Farage and UKIP.

  • “This is partly I think because unlike many conservatives, I don’t think our muddled “Constitution” was ever much good; it functioned because, for a while at least, the people administering it tried to do so in a fair and decent manner.”

    I agree with the second part of that. I think that our constitutional arrangements, such as they were, were as good as any, better than some, and maybe not so good as others. Ultimately, however, any set of rules or constraints only apply successfully if those in charge agree to be bound by those rules, and act in accordance with them.

    • P Robinson – This is best seen as a class issue. Our Constitution worked not because of its inherent virtues, but because England was dominated for 200 years by hereditary landlords whose perceived interest lay in resisting centralisation and administrative rule, and in clinging to a selective recreation of English history. This class was weakened by ideological and institutional changes after the 1860s, and destroyed by the Great War.

      This being so, the old Constitution has gone beyond recall. We need a new settlement, based on new class forces. We can hope this will incorporate many features of the old Constitution – due process, trial by jury, freedom of speech and association, etc. But we cannot restore what has passed away.

  • “This being so, the old Constitution has gone beyond recall.”

    Unfortunately, I think you’re right. But, my main point was whatever new settlement is reached, any new ruling class will have to abide by the new rules, exactly as the hereditary landlords did the old – most of the time. You can have a constitution with as many checks and balances as you like, but if those in charge decide to sweep them away, there doesn’t appear to be much us “plebs” can do about it!

    • P Robinson – We can hope that, after the treason trials, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the mass-sackings and pension cancellations – and possibly after a few hangings – whatever ruling class we get next will be a little more cautious for a while.

  • Dear Ms Sinclaire: Go to hell.
    Jeremy Bridges – a loyal and devoted UKIP member.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s